CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING. September 15, 2014

Transcription

1 CITY OF KENT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING & BUSINESS MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Dave Mail Paul Sellman Jona Burton Benjamin Tipton Elizabeth Howard Heather Phile, Development Planner Eric Fink, Assistant Law Director Sheila Uzl, Transcriptionist I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Mail called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Mail informed the applicants that there were only four members of the Board present at the meeting which meant that three out of the four would have to cast a positive vote for the variance requests to be approved. II. PLEDGE The pledge was recited. III. ROLL CALL Dave Mail, Paul Sellman, Jona Burton and Benjamin Tipton were present. IV. PREAMBLE Variance requests will be considered in the order that they appear on the agenda. Each variance applicant or their representative will first explain the request to the Board and will respond to Board questions. The Board will then hear statements from persons supporting the variance, followed by statements from those persons opposing the variance. All persons making statements will do so under oath, and shall state their name and address for the record. Their testimony shall be directed to the Board and not to the audience. If a member of the audience wishes to ask a question of one of the speakers, he or she shall first be recognized by the Chair of the Board and direct the question to the Chair. The Chair will then direct the question to the appropriate witness. This will allow

2 Page 2 the meeting to be conducted in an orderly manner. If written statements have been provided to the Board, they will be included in the record of this meeting. At the Chair s discretion, they may be read into the record during the meeting. After all testimony has been taken, the Board will discuss and review the request. Generally, the Board of Zoning Appeals will decide to approve or deny each requested variance at the meeting that it hears the testimony. Some decisions may be continued for further review. Mr. Fink read the General standards from Section (b)(3) that the follows in the granting of any variance. In every instance where the Board grants or recommends a variance, there must be a finding by the Board that: (1) The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property involved or to the intended use or development of the property that do not apply generally to other properties or uses within the same zoning district. (3) The granting of such variances will not be of substantial detriment to the public interest or to adjacent property owners or improvements in such districts in which the variance is sought and will not materially impair the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Howard read the following statement that summarizes the Board s authority: The Board of Zoning Appeals operates according to the provisions of the Kent City Zoning Code which provides for the establishment of the Board. Members of the Board, Kent citizens serving without pay, visit sites and hear evidence both pro and con at public meetings before carefully and conscientiously rendering a decision. After a decision has been made, the case is closed for the Board, as there is no provision in the code for the Board to reopen a case. If the petitioner disagrees with the findings of the Board, there are only two proper procedures. One is to resubmit a revision of the request that is more compatible with the code and the second is to institute legal procedures in the Common Pleas Court. V. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH Mr. Fink instructed members of the audience wishing to be heard on any of the cases presented at this meeting to rise and raise their right hand. Mr. Fink administered the oath, Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please say I do. The participants responded, I do. Mr. Fink instructed the new member Benjamin Tipton to stand and asked if he solemnly swore to upheld the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Ohio and the charter and ordinances of the City of Kent and to faithfully, honestly and impartially discharge their duty as a member of the of the City of Kent for so long as he continues in office. Mr. Tipton replied I do.

3 Page 3 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. BZ Mark & Sandy Harper 904 Stonewater Drive Section: Request: (a) The applicant is requesting a variance from Section (a) to allow a bump out driveway addition so the terminus will be 25 feet wide and 17 feet wide at the street. Mr. Mail asked the applicant to present the variance request. Sandy Harper, 904 Stonewater Drive, Kent, Ohio, introduced herself as the homeowner. Kris Kline, from Drees Homes in Massillon introduced himself. The received two letters and Mr. Mail read them for the record. The first letter was from Robert K. Heimann: September 4, 2014 To: Kent. From: Robert K. Heiman (Forest Lakes Development Company); Dear, Please consider this my support of and agreement on the driveway variance request for 904 Stonewater Drive. I own adjacent lots on Stonewater Drive. Regards, Robert K. Heimann The second letter was from Jon and Lydia Sally: To the Kent Zoning Appeals, Being disabled, I will not be able to attend the Zoning Appeal for the property at 904 Stonewater Drive. We object to the widening of the drive. I have called the City on this request and asked if there was a reasonable reason to widen the drive and was told there was no reason given. We have an association for matters relating to any changes in the development at the Lakes of Franklin Mills and have no info that I know of being requested form our Association. The City s spokesperson, Kim Brown, told me per conversation 9/9/14 that their request does not meet zoning for the City of Kent. I have told Jack Amrhein, our representative to Kent City Council, that we object to the request. Thank you, Jon and Lydia Sally, 1010 Roy Marsh Drive, Kent, Ohio. Ms. Harper stated they would like to retain the driveway that their contractor expanded so that all their cars could be accommodated. There is no street parking.

4 Page 4 Mr. Mail told the applicant that three criteria had to be met before a variance could be approved. The three criteria are if the variance would have an impact on the neighborhood, the existence of a hardship and if there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that exist that do not apply to surrounding properties. Mr. Burton asked what the hardship was. Ms. Harper stated they have two teenage sons, one who already drives and the younger son will be driving soon. She said they need somewhere to park. There is no additional parking available to us because the lot is next to a conservation area and there are landscaping islands in the road. The extension of the driveway is on the side of the lot that butts up to the conservation area. They need room to maneuver around in the driveway. There is no additional parking in the street and there are no neighbors. Mr. Mail stated that even if the approves the variance request, the Homeowners Association can still say no. The applicant would have to speak to the Homeowners Association on their own. Ms. Harper stated that the drive was already in. PUBLIC COMMENTS None BOARD ZONING OF APPEALS DISCUSSION Mr. Sellman stated there were no unusual circumstances but at the same time no real harm to the neighbors. The hardship is there is no parking on the street. Mr. Burton stated that there is no practical difficulty and there is not an unusual circumstance. Mr. Fink stated that there is a new code for driveways and changes to the code. He said it was more open as to what could be done. If a garage had three bays, a bump out would be allowed. Mr. Tipton stated that Bob Heimann wrote a letter in favor of the variance, but is not a resident, just a landowner. Mr. Mail understood the circumstances, and he agreed with comments made by the other Board members. The Homeowners Association has a say in the situation, but the Board

5 Page 5 of Zoning Appeals does not speak for them. He said the bump out is next to a conservation area and is not unattractive or intrusive. However, it does not meet the criteria the has to consider when approving a variance. Mr. Burton asked if approval would set a precedent. Mr. Mail did not see that it would be a precedent. Mr. Sellman stated he did want to follow the code. He commented on both letters the Board had received from the neighbors. Kris Kline asked what happened to it s my property and can t I do what I want? Mr. Sellman replied the approves variances that will be for the good of the City and the neighborhood. The Board has to follow the zoning laws. Mr. Fink stated that he has to have criteria that would hold up in Court. Mr. Mail stated that the hardship is in the code. He then asked the applicant if she would like to proceed with her variance request or wait until the fifth member of the Board is in attendance. Ms. Harper replied she would like to table her application until the October Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. B. BZA Islamic Society of Akron and Kent 325 Crain Avenue Section: Request: (a) The applicant is requesting a 10-foot variance from the 35-foot minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to be 25 feet from the from property line. Mr. Mail asked the applicant to present his request. Faris Alsaadoon, 1899 Ashton Drive, Hudson, Ohio, distributed more pictures to the Board which he referred to. He stated the building is currently being used as a prayer and meeting hall. There are currently more members than there was five years ago. He said they want to stay in the same location and make the center more functional and efficient. He said it was decided to do something more permanent to achieve this end.

6 Page 6 He said they consulted a Structural and Geotechnical Engineer who advised that the best way to do this is to have an entry porch in the front. He said they propose constructing a new 12-foot by 12-foot front porch that would be the main entry to the building. The new addition will be a vestibule-type entrance. He said all activity will be the same but with the new addition it will allow members to enter the building from the front rather than through the back door. He said the new entrance will help with traffic and will aide handicapped people as well as address safety issues. He said it would not be a detriment to the public welfare or surrounding properties. Mr. Mail asked if the new addition will affect the parking situation. Ms. Phile replied no. Mr. Mail asked if the material used would match the existing building. Mr. Alsaadoon replied yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Saleh Almugrin, 325 Crain Avenue, Kent, Ohio, stated that he was a student. He said the addition will improve the appearance and enhance the neighborhood. BOARD ZONING OF APPEALS DISCUSSION Mr. Sellman stated the addition will improve the aesthetic appearance of the building. It will help with traffic and safety. It would not be a detriment to the neighborhood. It would be better cover in the winter and a better use of the space. Mr. Burton agreed with Mr. Sellman s comments. He said the use of the building will be improving the functionality. Mr. Tipton agreed with the comments made. He said the building would be more functional and would be more in line with the other buildings on the street. Mr. Mail stated the addition would not hinder the sight and is not an intrusion to the neighborhood. There were no other comments, so Mr. Mail asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Sellman moved in Case BZ14-013, Islamic Society of Akron and Kent, property located at 325 Crain Avenue, that the

7 Page 7 grants the applicant s request for a 10-foot variance from the 35-foot minimum front yard setback to allow an addition to be 25 feet from the front property line as defined in Section (a) in the City of Kent Zoning Code. Mr. Burton seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 4 0. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Motion: Mr. Mail moved to excuse the absence of Elizabeth Howard. Mr. Sellman seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 4 0. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Mr. Sellman moved to adjourn. Mr. Burton seconded the motion. Vote: The motion passed 4 0. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.